So I've noticed that Kili seems to have more lines in The Hobbit than Fili, and more shots of him as well. Thorin also utilitises him more (yes, I understand he has a bow so that makes sense).

And if you've heard he might have some sort of romance with Tauriel.

Is Peter Jackson going to leave Fili in the dust when the death scene comes? He created a "hot" dwarf and he's going to show him off. I have no problem with fangirls thinking that, but I'm worried PJ is going to forget about Fili when the time comes.

I have no doubts that Thorin's death will far outshine either of theirs. I expect both of theirs to be short and sweet like Haldir's, and Thorin's to be longer and really pack a punch. There's a sad sort of clanging from the clock in the hall and the bells in the steeple, too. And up in the nursery an absurd little bird is popping out to say coo-coo (coo-coo, coo-coo).

It became pretty obvious when those banners came out-- Kili seemed to be featured in the front in nearly every scene. I mean, he's ok, but nothing great. Certainly he's no funnier or more appealing than any of the other dwarves (and that's not even mentioning his embarrassing complete lack of beard!). I guess they're doing this for the ladies, which seems kind of silly but whatevs. Give me more Balin, Bofur or Dwalin, or give Bombur a line for chrissakes!

While we want all 13 dwarves to have significant camera time and individual characters, it is impossible. Even if there were 13 films instead of three, there's no time. One thing I've learned very quickly from this board (and from Jackson's films) is that some people love certain characters, some was equality, some want Tolkien's dialog to stay with the same dwarf Tolkien gave it to, and some just want to replace Peter Jackson in the director's chair.

I thought Merry's character was horribly pushed aside in LotR. (Not to mention Fatty Bolger)

Even if all the dwarves' dialog were split in equal 1/13th shares, some of us would start counting the letters to see if that was balanced, too. And a few of us would translate each line into dwarvish to see if it balanced there, too.

Fili and Kili deserve equal time and equal deaths, but it won't happen. Even Tolkien paired or trio-ed the dwarves so he didn't even have to try to differentiate them all. Sadly, Fili and Kili are more a pair than two separate dwarves.

I think giving Kili the bulk of the lines will help the audience connect with the pair, rather than trying to divide the lines and emotional connection between both.

In my own way, I'm hoping PJ leaves some of the dwarves in the background. I like a little left to my imagination. 'There is some woe that lies upon you... Why will you not tell me more?' 'For that woe is past,' said Galadriel; 'and I would take what joy is here left, untroubled by memory. And maybe there is woe enough yet to come, thought still hope may seem bright.'

even Tolkien didn't give all the dwarves equal time. Some of them have only a line or two in the whole book. I don't think it's practical to try for equality in the movies either. If we get some sense of the personalities of all of them by the end, that'll be great. Silverlode

Those of us who have read the books know that future events will focus on different dwarves, and by the end of the three movies, I think all of them will have specific moments and plenty of lines to speak.

I just assumed that when they finally made the movie that they would just cut some of them out for time and ease. Given how little many of them are developed in the book, this could have happened. So the fact that all 13 are there, for me, is gravy.

just taking some of the time given to the least interesting dwarf with the most screen time(Kili), and giving it to one of the more interesting, well defined dwarves (Balin, Bofur, Dwalin, Dori). I don't even have anything against Kili really. He's fine i guess, and Aidan Turner is an appealing actor. It's just that there's not much to his character, and these other dwarves are much stronger characters, and screen time is valuable. Also, i get the feeling that he's being forced on us a bit for, as i said earlier, the ladies.

Dwalin and Balin get plenty of screen time and Bofur has quite a few important scenes (toying with Bilbo, catching Bilbo when he tries to leave). Kili and Fili are far more important than say Oin or Bombur. We know the less featured dwarves will have their time to shine in the next two movies. Yet another reason why a trilogy was needed to flesh out the dwarves.

Kili and Fili need screen time in order to make their demise far more poignant. We the audience must have a vested interest so their deaths have meaning. Kili has plenty of character, he is a young dwarf with a royal heritage yearning to prove himself and make his uncle Thorin proud. He is relatable because he likes to jest and his banter with Bilbo moves along the story like at the camp when Thorin scolds him and when Bilbo wishes to save the ponies from the trolls. He may be a Legolas type fan girl magnet but he is far better characterized than Legolas in FOTR. He may need more development but that should happen through the next two films. Bofur is still my favorite dwarf and Kili is maybe my fourth so it's not as if I need him to be the best or anything. I just think its bias to see him as undeveloped or boring simply because he is taking time away from dwarves some consider more interesting.

Fili and Kili deserve equal time and equal deaths, but it won't happen. Even Tolkien paired or trio-ed the dwarves so he didn't even have to try to differentiate them all. Sadly, Fili and Kili are more a pair than two separate dwarves.

This is what I mean. They're both going to kick the bucket, I don't see why PJ can't give them more or less the same screen time. Then again, Legolas didn't get much time in Fellowship but he got more in the other two. I suppose there's hope but with Tauriel it will be pretty hard.

which i guess is biased. But i don't have an agenda, and i'm not particularly anti-Kili. It's just that out of all the dwarves, he'd be toward the bottom of my list of most interesting or favorite dwarves (i actually like Fili quite a bit more). And i definitely believe that he was designed and pushed to the forefront as, at best, the "relatable" dwarf (looking the most human), and, at worst, the "hot" dwarf. But as it turns out, in the actual movie he's fine and not much more. If anything, i'd like Fili and Kili to be even more of a team, playing off each other more (which there are hints of in AUJ).

I'm really not wanting to see more of any particular dwarf (we all have our favorites), i just want to see more interaction between them. That way we get to know the individuals more, and we get more of a sense of them as a group. The Hobbit would've been a lot better if there'd been more of this sort of thing in the last third of the film, among all the action sequences, which to me felt rushed and personality-less (excepting Riddles in the Dark of course). They just didn't seem to talk to each other all that much, and when they did (more in the beginning than the end), it was great fun, and added a lot to the movie. I really hope there's more of that in the EE, and in the next two films.

We all know what happens in the book, but will Jackson actually follow the book? You would think so...but he has already taken away important aspects of dains character. What if Dain is just the Dwarf Lord who rocks up with an army to "save the day" ?

The thought did cross my mind and I would not welcome the change any more than PJ sparing Thorin. At this time it is impossible to know what is in store for the traditional characters. If Glorfindel can be replaced by Appendix limited Arwen and Haldir can die at Helms deep, then I suppose Kili could survive as legitimate heir to become king under the mountain.

And, based on what we already know of PJ's modus operandi, I'm not sure what would even make you fear such a thing? We know he has a tendency to change things, for sure, but none of those changes have ever altered the final outcome. Sometimes he chooses a different path to get where we want to end up, but in the end we still get there. Kili staying alive to succeed Thorin to the throne would be a change of a completely different nature than anything PJ has previously come up with.

Before the film came out we had months of people imagining the awful things Peter Jackson was going to do, and worrying about them, and talking themselves into a place where they were certain that this.... or that.... or some other totally self-generated piece of absurdity was going to ruin the film for them. And it didn't. They could have saved themselves all that angst.

Yes, of course Peter Jackson could do what you say, he could make a spaceship land in the middle of the battle and whisk them away, but why would he? Isn't it just as likely (much more, to my mind) that he is developing Fili and Kili in the way he is to increase the impact of what will happen to them? (Following the book, that is)

1) Thorin 2) the "Veterans" - represented mostly by Balin in terms of dialogue but including others shown in the battle flashback: Dwalin, Oin, Gloin and maybe Bifur 3) the "Rookies" - Fili & Kili with Kili (serving as obvious analogue to Thorin) getting the focus of Film One. 4) the "Island of Misfit Toys" - with Bofur taking the lead (in terms of dialogue) for Bombur, Ori, Dori & Nori. We haven't seen their backstory yet.

This framework relieves the movies of having to have a fully developed story arc for each dwarf but allows us to get to know each of them as individuals and their relationships with each other.

If we are going to see Gimli at Bo5A (is that confirmed?) then that will obviously provide the occasion for Oin and Gloin to have a few interesting scenes.

He and Fili were my favourite dwarves long ago, before I'd heard of Peter Jackson or imagined there would ever be a film. I was a child when I read the book so I singled them out because they were the youngest and that was important to me then.

If anyone here had been asked about the dwarves before the casting was announced I don't believe Kili would have been singled out as 'the least interesting' or a weaker character. In the book he's more interesting than some of the others, who are really no more than names. At least we know he's one of the youngest dwarves, sharp-eyed and good with a bow, and Thorin's nephew - and we know what happens to him at the end.

Far as I can see, the anti-Kili feeling that keeps cropping up around here is nothing more than a reaction to the fact that a young and relatively good-looking actor was cast to play the part. Same thing happened with Legolas. The perception that this was done 'to please the ladies' (how patronising is that!) is enough to provoke this backlash among those who aren't ladies and don't want to be seen as such.... It has nothing to do with the character in the book or in the film, or with the way the actor plays it.

I just don't find him very funny or compelling, and he doesn't seem very dwarf-like to me. Again, i don't hate him, i just don't find him deserving of so much screen time. But if others like him, that's cool-- he doesn't ruin the movie for me or anything.

I'll admit that, going into the movie, he was always my least favorite. I've always thought (as have many, many others) that he looks nothing like a dwarf, more like a Ranger from the north, and was obviously cast and designed to appeal to a certain demographic, which i guess is fine and to be expected. And i don't think it's just because he's a good looking guy. There are other good-looking dwarves, and i never had a problem with them, because they at least look more dwarf-like. Anyway, once the movie came out, but before i saw it, i saw the interviews with the actors, and Aidan Turner seemed like an alright, appealing guy. So i thought maybe Kili won't be so bad-- and he's not. He's just nothing special, but it seems the filmmakers think we should think so. That's the only thing i'm questioning here.

Really, it's no big deal. I don't even really see it as a flaw, and the film, while really good, has much bigger problems.

I'll just keep watching it, and re-watching it, like i have with the previous trilogy, and he'll just become a part of the fabric of these great films.

So I've noticed that Kili seems to have more lines in The Hobbit than Fili, and more shots of him as well

Perhaps the fact that Kili appears more prominent in AUJ is one of practicality and necessity caused by Robert Kazinsky's (the original Fili) departure after filming had started? Considering that a month of dwarf filming had been done when Kazinsky left, Dean O'Gorman then stepped in and had an intensive dwarf training course before he could start on set. Fili may just have 'less' screen time in AUJ because PJ had less set time with Gorman and had to even edit out Kazinsky from some of the scenes..

... the prominence of Kili has probably got a lot more to do with an actor being replaced during the shoot, than writing and directorial decisions regarding the hotness of actors, Kazinsky is as relatively 'hot' as Turner (if you are into those things)